Memorize:"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish
it, and to institute a new Government." — Declaration of Independence

1.4.1 Our civil rights are threatened

The Bible says that you are morally justified to arm yourself
and band with others who love liberty. American history shows that
you stand in a great tradition if you arm and organize yourself.
The Constitution clearly recognizes your legal right to possess
firearms and join a militia. But should you want to?

The U.S. Army field manual on Guerrilla Warfare (FM 31-21,
September, 1961, page 5) says: "Resistance movements begin to form when dissatisfaction
occurs among strongly motivated individuals who cannot further
their cause by peaceful or legal means."

So we must ask ourselves: Is there any reason to suspect that
my personal liberties are in jeopardy? Is there any indication that
the government is systematically threatening my rights? Is there
any possibility that a tyranny could be established in the United
States?

Affirmative answers to any of these questions should arouse
our fervor for liberty and motivate us to spring immediately and
effectively to arms.

It will now be demonstrated that our liberties are in
jeopardy, that our rights are systematically threatened, and that
tyranny can happen in the United States. (I am not saying it will,
I'm saying it could happen.) We will demonstrate this by examining
the status of our civil, gun, property, and state rights. First,
here are some examples of violated civil rights:

The right to life (Fifth Amendment):

For a generation we have had legalized abortion which denies
the right of the unborn child to live. While an individual's right
to privacy cannot be restricted by the interests of any majority,
they are restricted by other individual rights. The Declaration of
Independence and Bible both imply that the right to life is
superior to privacy.

President Clinton's proposed health care program will
include "reproductive services" like abortion (Senator John Glenn,
form letter to constituents, 1/5/94). Not only will abortion be
legal, but every hospital will be required to perform them and
public funds will be used to pay for them.

This means we are approaching the situation in communist
China where abortions are mandated by the state for all but the
firstborn child.

President Clinton's health care program will include built-
in euthanasia for "undesirable" patients. If the state determines
that you are too old, too disabled, or too mentally ill to lead a
"quality" life, medical care can and will be denied. (National
Right to Life Committee high priority communication, 1994, p. 2.)

Freedom of religion (First Amendment):

In the city of ----- it is technically illegal to conduct a
worship service or church gathering in a private residence. While
this is rarely enforced, the fact that it is law says a lot! This
is somewhat typical of municipal zoning regulations against
churches.

Attempts have recently been made to require state
certification of private school teachers and homeschoolers. While
the attempts have failed for now, it is incomprehensible that
legislators and congressmen even consider such measures in light of
the First Amendment. Remember: licensing means state permission and
certification means state control!

The American 2000 education program is designed to
standardize the curriculum in and centralize control of all public
schools by imposing "outcome based" education on all school
districts.

J. Gresham Machen wrote, "A public-school system, if it
means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is
a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when
once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of
tyranny which has yet been devised" (Christianity & Liberalism,
Eerdmans, 1923, p. 14).

It is a well-known communist tenet that if you can control
the education of one generation, you will control the government
and lives of all subsequent generations.

Freedom of the press (First Amendment)

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulates the
radio and television industry. While it is practically necessary to
specify which stations can use which frequencies, it is
unconstitutional for the FCC to base station licensing on the
content of its programming.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a federal agency
that funds public television. PBS is by its very nature
informational. Thus we have a situation that in principle
approaches having a state news agency like foreign dictatorships
and autocratic governments have.

At various times it has been required that radio stations
and TV networks give equal time to political candidates or views.
The present push towards the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting is
a case in point. While this is a sound practice for objective
journalism, it violates the First Amendment for the government to
mandate which political views are aired and how much coverage they
should receive.

Searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment)

At one time when I was in high school, the sheriff's
department routinely pulled over and searched any and all cars
carrying teenagers between two towns that had rival gangs. No
warrants were issued, and the only "probable cause" for criminal
intent was the mere fact that occupants happened to look like
teenagers. This sort of thing happens all the time in America and
is rarely contested in the courts.

The Internal Revenue Service routinely has access to all of
your bank records, including microfiche copies of checks
identifying who you do business with and what you buy, without a
warrant (Mark Skousen, Mark Skousen's Complete Guide to Financial
Privacy, chapters 1 and 2, 1979).

It has been alleged — although I have not confirmed it —
that laws are on the books which permit unlimited and unwarranted
wire taps of private telephone lines provided that they are not
used in court. But the Fourth Amendment does not concern court-
related surveillance but any surveillance at all by any government
official or agency!

1.4.2 Our gun rights are threatened

In case you think your right to keep and bear arms is secure,
just consider the following (much of this happened just in 1993-
1994).

Historical gun control

Some of the first American gun control laws were intended to
keep black slaves and even free blacks from owning guns lest they
free themselves (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p.
129). Many of today's gun control initiatives are veiled attempts
by the American elite to keep guns out of the hands of the poor and
blacks.

Nazis in Denmark, the military in Greece, and officials in
Hungary have all used pre-existing registered gun owners lists to
confiscate weapons when they invaded or came to power (Alan
Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 88-89).

The U.S. 1968 Gun Control Act is a word-for-word translation
of Adolf Hitler's German gun control laws of 1938 Nazi Germany
(T.C. Fry and Tony Lavinge, "Are You Aware That ...", American
Freedom Network).

Gun regulation

The Brady Bill was passed and signed into law by President
Clinton requiring a five-day waiting period and criminal background
check for all handgun purchases in late November, 1993 and was
effective 3/1/94.

Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen (who oversees the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or BATF) proposed raising the
licensing fee for gun dealers from $66 to $600 per year for the
express purpose of putting 200,000 out of 284,000 American gun
dealers out of business. (Wall Street Journal, 1/5/94, p. A1).

Gun licensing

The 1968 Gun Control Act outlaws the possession of all
automatic weapons and "short-barreled" rifles or shotguns unless
they are licensed by and registered with the BATF.

Virtually all municipalities require a person to have a
"carry permit" or license to openly carry a loaded gun in his or
her car or on the street or to carry any concealed weapons on his
or her person.

Gun registration

A yellow federal form must be completed for every purchase
of a gun from a dealer. These forms include your name, address,
type and serial number of the gun bought, and answers to several
questions. While this is not called "registration" because the
records are kept by the dealer only, the BATF is allowed to make a
warrantless search of these records each year and may "borrow" them
for further inspection and perhaps copying (Up to Date, "BATF
Abuses of Gun Owners' Rights," The Second Amendment Foundation,
1994).

All guns must be registered in states such as Illinois and
New York.

Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen proposed registration of
"street sweeper" semi-automatic shotguns because they have no
sporting use (U.S. News & World Report, 3/14/94). What about
militia use?

Gun taxation

The 1968 Gun Control Act outlaws the possession of automatic
weapons without a $200 transfer tax being paid to the BATF.

It is now seriously being considered that a sharp tax be
placed on certain kinds of ammunition to help fund the national
health program.

Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen also proposed a sharp tax
increase on "street sweeper" semi-automatic shotguns because they
have no sporting use (U.S. News & World Report, 3/14/94).

Gun prohibition

Former Governor Wilder of Virginia proposed that citizens of
Virginia be limited to the purchase of one gun per moth. Similar
proposals are even now being pressed and considered in the U.S.
Congress.

Foreign assault rifles are banned for import and sale in the
U.S.

The city of Cleveland passed an outright ban on the sale and
ownership of semi-automatic "assault rifles" in 1989 and the Ohio
Supreme Court upheld as "Constitutional" this law in 1993. ("Crime
Fighters Have a New Tool in Deadly Work," 8/22/93, p. A-1).

Columnist Bob Greene of The Chicago Tribune has proposed
abolishing the Second Amendment altogether and enforcing gun bans
by sweeping house-to-house police searches and seizures for all
guns ("A Gun-Free Nation? Just Think About It," 8/28/93, p. 2).

Sarah Brady of Handgun Control wants national gun control
laws, a ban on semi-automatic "assault rifles," and says, "It
simply doesn't make any sense at all for private citizens to be
permitted to buy military equipment that was designed solely for
killing people in combat" (Sarah Brady, Handgun Control newsletter,
p. 2, 1993).

The House is also debating banning assault weapons and 10+
round magazines ("Reports from Washington," February 1994).

Gun law enforcement abuses

The BATF is known to have routinely and intentionally given
false answers to inquiries about gun regulations so they could raid
the person's house and arrest them (Up to Date, "BATF Abuses of Gun
Owners' Rights," the Second Amendment Foundation, 1994).

The BATF raided the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas
although all charges were previously investigated and dropped,
using falsified information to obtain a warrant, by shooting first,
and by misinforming the public (Waco: The Big Lie, video tape,
1993).

The BATF attempted to entrap Randy Weaver in Idaho. When he
refused to become one of their henchmen, his cabin was put under
24-hour BATF surveillance, leading to a surprise confrontation that
left Weaver's son and wife dead and Weaver acquitted of any
wrongdoing ("It Could Happen to You," by Charlie Reese, 1/11/94, p. 4).

New anti-gun developments as of 3/26/94

In the couple of weeks since printing this material several
attacks on gun rights have come to my attention which deserve being
mentioned.

First, the Senate-approved ban on semi-automatic weapons which
is now pending in the House (a vote is expected around April 1,
1994) actually would ban much more than politicians admit.
Supposedly, it would ban only specific models such as the TEC-22,
TEC-9, AK-475, Uzi, Galil, AR-70, MAC-10, MAC-11, MAC-12, AR-15,
and Steyr AUG to name just a few. However....

The BATF admits that 26 other models of firearms would be
banned by the language of this bill. This is 45 firearms, not 19 as
claimed.

Furthermore, any semi-automatic with a detachable magazine
would also be banned if it has any two additional military features
such as a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash
suppressor, etc.

If the bill becomes law and you own one of these firearms,
you will have 90 days to surrender your rifle or to register it.
After that, non-compliance could result in a $1,000 fine, six
months in prison, and permanent loss of any right to own any
firearm forever!

Second, as if this is not bad enough, on February 28, 1994,
Congressman Schumer and Senator Metzenbaum introduced legislation
which advocates:

Banning magazines that can hold more than six rounds of
ammunition and an outright ban on all "Saturday night specials" or
cheap handguns.

Federal registration and licensing of all handguns in the
United States and limiting purchases of handguns to only one gun
per month.

Making all gun shows and gun sales illegal, requiring gun
dealers to sell only at their one licensed place of business, and
raising the gun dealers license fee to a staggering $1000 per year.

Imposing a 30 percent tax on all handgun sales and a 50
percent tax on all handgun ammunition sales.

Requiring individuals to obtain an "arsenal license" if they
own more than 20 firearms or if they own more than 1000 rounds of
ammunition.

These "arsenal licenses" would cost $300, be subject to
government approval, and would require BATF inspections (i.e.,
invasions) of your home three times per year to maintain.

The really subversive thing about these two bills is that they
are aimed at limiting militias more than at limiting crime.
Military features on rifles like folding stocks, pistol grips, and
flash suppressors are useful on a battlefield but immaterial in
committing a murder or bank robbery. How many criminals bayonet
someone? Moreover, limiting the amount of ammunition we can own to
1000 rounds does not do anything for violent crime. It only takes
one loaded magazine holding a few rounds to knock over a bank or
blow someone's brains out. But it takes an "arsenal" of thousands
of rounds of ammunition to be ready to oppose the government.

1.4.3 Our property rights are threatened

Your property rights are also under attack. Virtually
everything possible is being done to take away whatever wealth you
have.

Taking property without a trial (Fifth Amendment)

The Fifth Amendment states: "nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Internal Revenue Service has the power to put a lien on
your house, attach your paycheck, and confiscate your property
without a trial by jury and without your conviction if they
unilaterally determine that you have evaded taxes (Tax Loopholes:
Everything the Law Allows, Boardroom Classics, 1993).

Various police departments across the country routinely
confiscate homes, cars, and other possessions of those arrested for
dealing in drugs and sell these properties to raise funds before
the person arrested has been convicted of wrongdoing by a jury and
whether or not it is demonstrated that drug money was used to buy
the property.

Taking property for public use (Fifth Amendment)

The Fifth Amendment also states: "nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The use of your property can and is restricted by municipal
zoning codes, state and federal environmental laws, and other
governmental regulations for "the public good," even if the use of
the property that is forbidden does not harm the lives or property
of others.

All of these regulations somehow limit the personal use of
the property and many limit or reduce the property's commercial
productivity or value on the real estate market.

While the courts recognize that these practices reduce the
uses and value of private property, they have ruled they are
Constitutional because they are only "partial takings" not total
takings of property (Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property
and the Power of Eminent Domain, Harvard, 1985). In other words, it
is legal for the government to seize your property — without
compensation — as long as they don't take all of it!

Income taxes are unconstitutional

Originally income taxes were illegal because the
Constitution required all taxes to be apportioned among the states
proportional to their populations, not their incomes.

The 16th Amendment, which permits federal income taxes, was
not ratified in the same language by three fourths of the United
States as required by Article V of the Constitution and is
therefore invalid. The approved wording was different in different
states and therefore they ratified different amendments! ("Is
Income Tax Un-American and Illegal?", July and August, 1993, pp.
14-16).

The courts refuse to cast down the 16th Amendment even
though it was not legally ratified.

Progressive taxes are unconstitutional

As we have seen, the Fifth Amendment prohibits taking
property for public use without compensation.

State and federal income taxes are "progressive" taxes
meaning that the higher your income, the higher the percentage of
your income you pay in taxes. The purpose and effect of this
progressive tax structure is to redistribute wealth from one group
to another. High wage earners are taxed to fund welfare and other
entitlements. In other words, their property (money) is taken for
the public good without compensation in total violation of the
Fifth Amendment.

The fact that this tax structure is propped up by a majority
consensus is immaterial. "The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not steal.'
It does not say, 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote'"
(Gary North, "Free Market Capitalism" in Wealth & Poverty: Four
Christian Views of Economics, edited by Robert G. Clouse,
InterVarsity, 1984, p. 41).

Excessive taxes are unconstitutional

At the time of the American Revolution, European-type
serfdom was considered a form of slavery and consisted of paying
25% of a peasant's productivity from farming land to the landlord.

For 1993, American tax rates were as follows for a family
with a taxable income of $25,000:

Social Security

12.40% of income

(Half paid by employer)

Medicare

2.90% of income

(Half paid by employer

Federal income tax

15.00% of income

(Up to 39.6% for rich)

Income tax

2.67% of income

(Up to 7.5% for rich)

County 5% sales tax

2.00% of income

(All money isn't spent)

County property taxes

3.00% of income

City income tax

1.75% of income

Total

39.72% of income

(Up to 69.15% on rich)

This does not include hidden taxes like employer
contributions to workers compensation (between 2% and 14%!),
gasoline taxes, tariffs on imported goods, "sin" taxes on tobacco
and alcoholic beverages, and so on, and so on, and so on. Therefore
today's typical American citizen can pay between 40% and 70% of his
income or productivity in the form of some kind of tax.

The tax system is thus a subtle form of slavery and violates
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Robert
J. Villella, "A New Declaration," July/August 1993, p. 17).

Hotel taxes are unAmerican

States and communities commonly tax hotels, amusement parks,
and some restaurants at higher rates than other businesses.
Generally this "hotel" tax is two or three times as high as the
area's sales tax.

The obvious purpose of such taxes is to make tourists from
out of town pay higher taxes than the locals. As the maxim says,
"Don't tax you, and don't tax me. Tax that man behind the tree!"

This practice is clearly contrary to the American principle
of "no taxation without representation!

1.4.4 State rights are non-existent

The state rights guarantied by the Tenth Amendment are
universally ignored by every branch of the federal government.

The way things should be

Article X of the Bill of Rights
states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people." Unless the Constitution
specifically grants a power to a branch of the federal government,
or says that states cannot do something, it is presumed that the
authority and power rests with the states. In other words,

Whenever there is a conflict between the laws of federal and
state governments, the state law which should take precedent and
prevail over the federal law, not vise versa, unless the
Constitution says otherwise.

As we saw previously, the whole Bill of Rights is designed as
a limitation on federal powers. The Tenth Amendment serves this
purpose by dividing and diluting power among the several states.
Indeed, it was state governments that ratified the Constitution and
delegated authority to the federal government. This being the case,
they only handed over authority to the federal government to do
what is specified in the Constitution and nothing more.

The way things really are

Obviously, the Tenth Amendment is
routinely ignored by the president, the Congress, and the courts.
In extra-constitutional matters, state laws should override federal
laws. But in fact, federal laws always override state laws.
National speed limits supersede state speed limits. Federal
environmental rules outweigh similar state rules. In every
governmental matter, the only state laws that exist are those
compatible with federal laws or which the federal government has
seen fit not to address at all.

One of the best examples of the total disregard for state
rights is federal mandates. The federal government frequently
mandates that states enact certain laws, provide certain services,
or fund specific programs that cost millions or billions of dollars
without one cent of federal funding to support the mandate.

Don't be fooled by the fact that states are permitted to do
things that Washington does not do. Remember, permission and rights
are incompatible. In some matters, Congress et al. simply do not
want to flex their muscles. For instance, during the Reagan
administration, a major shift in power took place away from federal
agencies to state agencies. But this was because liberals in
Washington recognized that Ronald Reagan sought deregulation. Since
state agencies were more active regulators than their federal
counterparts, responsibilities were conveniently transferred to the
states to sustain strong industry regulation. But this whole scheme
is Washington's doing and not the result of any state's right to
govern.

The point here is not that state governments are any more
noble or benevolent than the federal government. They are not
because they consist of the same frail human beings that are
susceptible to corruption by power. The point is something that is
spelled out clear as day in the Constitution is always and
everywhere totally and completely turned on its head!

A call to arms!

From every legitimate angle, we are justified in keeping and
bearing arms as well as forming or joining a militia independent of
government control. The Bible tells us we are morally right. The
American Revolution shows we have the historical right. The
Constitution protects our legal right. Moreover, our Constitutional
liberties are systematically being eroded and denied. The fact that
officials are infringing gun rights on every front is simply a
manifestation of their inner tendency to empower themselves. Left
unchecked, this tendency will lead to genuine tyranny. Remember,
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

So this is a pivotal point in American history. If the
government is successful in banning semi-automatic paramilitary
weapons, then they will be emboldened not only to further infringe
gun rights, but to infringe all rights. This is because the Second
Amendment is the teeth of the Bill of Rights, and assault rifles
are the teeth of the Second Amendment. Without their bite, there is
nothing to prevent a draconian state from devouring all of our
precious liberties.

Your right and duty is to arm and organize yourself against
further federal and state encroachments on your liberties. As a
minimum, you should purchase and learn how to effectively use a
firearm, preferably a so-called assault rifle. The more citizens
that own guns, the less willing the government will be to threaten
us. Ideally, you should also join a local militia, committed to
constitutional principles. You need to be organized, equipped,
trained, and coordinated with other like-minded men to effectively
stand up to the growing arrogance of the federal government. It was
said during the American Revolution that "united we stand, divided
we fall." This is still true today. So arm yourself. Organize
yourselves. And prepare to fight if you have to.

We could learn a lot from the Swiss. They are zealously
neutral and refuse to meddle in foreign affairs. Neither should we
be aggressors or wish to start bloodshed. But Switzerland is also
a virtual armed camp of citizen soldiers prepared to fight to the
last man for their freedom. Major H. von Dach of the Swiss army put
it this way:

"If two enemies fight each other to the last — and this is
always the case when an ideology is involved (religion is part of
it) — guerrilla warfare and civilian resistance will inevitably
break out in the final phase.

"The military expert who undervalues or even disregards
guerrilla warfare makes a mistake since he does not take into
consideration the strength of the heart.

"The last, and admittedly, most cruel battle will be fought by
civilians. It will be conducted under the fear of deportation, of
execution, and concentration camps.

"We must and will win this battle since each Swiss [in our
case American] male and female in particular believe in the
innermost part of their hearts — even if they are too shy and
sober in everyday life to admit or even speak about it — in the
old and yet very up-to-date saying: 'Death rather than slavery!'"

Are you convinced that the cases cited are factual
infringements of our rights by the government? If not, which ones
are you skeptical of? Are you skeptical that these things actually
occur or that they are really unconstitutional? Do you need more
substantiation?

Have you ever personally experienced any of these
improprieties? Which ones? Do you think you might experience them
in the future?

Which of these violations of personal liberties is (are) most
alarming, shocking, or ominous to you? Why?

Would you classify the attack on your rights as insignificant
or dangerous? As isolated or systematic? As careless or
intentional?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how alarmed are you at the present
status of your liberty? What else would have to happen to make you
alarmed?

Do you believe the present attack on personal liberties is
more or less widespread and serious than during the days leading up
to the American Revolution? How are things worse? How are they
better?

Does it reassure you that these improprieties are done by or
with the knowledge of elected officials instead of a military
dictator? How is this similar to 1775-1776 when the British
Parliament suppressed American liberties? How is it different?

What are your thoughts on joining a militia in your community?
What are your reservations?

At this point it would be premature to ask you for your
commitment to the Free Militia. You do not yet know who we are,
what we stand for, why we exist, when we are willing to fight, or
how we are organized. Section 2 of this field manual addresses
these issues by explaining:

2.1 Who and what is the Free Militia?

2.2 Equipping yourself for the Free Militia

2.3 General organization of the Free Militia

2.4 Secrecy and security in the Free Militia

Would you like to read this section and consider joining us?
Yes___ No___

Main ideas of this section

Your civil rights to life, free religion, free press, and
security from unreasonable searches and seizures are systematically
being threatened.

Your right to keep and bear arms is systematically infringed
by regulation, licensing, registration, taxation, and prohibition
of all kinds of firearms.

Your property rights are systematically violated by having
property taken without trial, without compensation, and through
confiscatory taxation.

State rights are universally denied since, in principle, state
laws should prevail over federal laws while, in practice, the
opposite always happens.

Further study

The best way to follow developments related to your
Constitutional liberties is to pay attention to newspapers and news
magazines (television news is too surface and sensational to give
any reliable information).

I might also suggest a couple of video tapes. The video on the
massacre in Waco, Texas is very chilling since it presents actual
visual images of BATF abuses of power.